I was always under the assumption smaller weapons in tight, close quarters were much better. Wouldn't want someone grabbing the barrel of your gun as you poke around a corner or have to whip around in a confined area. Maybe i just assume that from the movies.

It must be shocking for modern americans get a glimpse of what they are from a historical perspective..
and where Empire via the barrell of a gun has led so many times before..

Honor system mostly especially in wider open area environments. Smaller fields and indoor fields may have a match coordinator also serve as an "acting" ref.

From experience, the orange tip is a massive grey zone, with enforcement very arbitrary. That's probably why the owner was able to get by before, but suddenly not able to now. I used to keep an orange ribbon around so that any time law enforcement of any type showed up, I would wrap around the end of my barrels so it would "technically" comply, just in case.

As for the internals, to give an idea of how different they are, theres usually two "barrels" to the gun, the outer cosmetic barrel and the inner proper barrel. To say that airsoft weapons can be easily chambered to fire real bullets is like saying you can get them to fire out of a metal pipe. The upper and lower receiver internals are, for electric, a mechanical gearbox that has more in common with an RC car than a firearm. Gas is even more "different" as all its doing is pressing a button on the magazine to release the gas and launch the BB.

All of this doesn't even touch upon the fact that ATF defines the firearm portion of a real weapon to be the lower receiver and not the upper receiver. Thats where generally the firearm bits that do most of the real work are. So to say that an airsoft gun could be converted from the shell of an airsoft rifle would conflict with that lower receiver policy.

By the way, in the airsoft community, "any kid, any parent, any adult going out of the house with this..." would usually get you kicked off the establishment for doing something that stupid. Gunbags, fucking gunbags.

You're welcome It just needed a bit of a push.

In reply to this comment by geo321:
Awesome! Thanks man. I never thought that video would see the light of day.
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*quality *doublepromote

Awesome! Thanks man. I never thought that video would see the light of day.
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*quality *doublepromote

>> ^hpqp:

Cutting the opportunity for middle and lower classes to get educated (and, you know, stay alive thanks to healthcare) is the BEST way to let our future be continually in the hands of rich people living in mansions far far away.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^ghark:
"Paul, a longtime critic of federal spending not authorized by the Constitution, calls for eliminating the federal Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.
He also wants to abolish the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I noticed he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% as well.
No public education, no healthcare, rich pay less taxes and get richer.
Sounds exciting.

It is exciting. Is there any other candidate even saying we should end corporate welfare, let alone proposing a budget doing so?
The corporate tax rate helps small business owners. Corporations pay little to no taxes now as it is. Exemptions and offshore loopholes only work for big business. And the only candidate that wants to get rid of the corrupt tax system is Paul.
No public education and no healthcare are false arguments. Our future and our health shouldn't be decided by imperial government agents living in a mansion far far away.
Everybody pays less taxes, and we all prosper.



Who's cutting opportunities? Oh, yes. You live in the bizarro world where taking from some people (denying them opportunities) is actually providing opportunities for others. At best, you can hope for a net loss (and net gain) of 0 opportunities. In reality, we have to rely on financing the future of our children just to stay ahead. So how did those "rich people living in mansions" get so rich? By finding a niche in this corrupt system or succeeding in spite of it? In the real world, the only real opportunities are ones you recognize for yourself. Helping our fellow man should be our duty, but coercion by the barrel of a gun is tyranny.

Supporting the status quo is the BEST way to let our future be continually in the hands of the few.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
And I will answer the question. As I have above. People shouldn't be forced to pay for services at the barrel of a gun
So that's a "yes", to let him die?


So what are you saying? It's either have money extorted to socialize medical treatments for everyone or some hypothetical person dies? No, I don't live in such a binary world. There are nuances.

If someone doesn't take personal responsibility they may die. That goes for all of us. Life is a risk. And your life isn't anyone else's responsibility but your own. Though those who love you would certainly give everything to save you. And that's how it should be.

I wish there was a medical system in the US that took care of all of us. I really do. And I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that than the wars and nation-building your party and the other one has gotten us into. But don't pretend the government spends our money smartly and in our best interest or try to guilt us into believing it can. The guy who beats his wife will never change.

>> ^blankfist:

And I will answer the question. As I have above. People shouldn't be forced to pay for services at the barrel of a gun

So that's a "yes", to let him die?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
I see a lot of self-righteous posturing over this trivial snippet of video.
Really? People literally cheering the idea of letting someone die seems trivial to you?
How about answering the question yourself? Should it be legal to refuse life-saving treatment to people who can't pay for it?
Or can you only respond to this criticism by attacking the character of the people who raised it?


Cheering for not having to pay for a hypothetical person who made a bad hypothetical decision is trivial. Yes. It shows a disgusting side of human behavior, but trivial nonetheless. But you guys are waving the flag of injustice as if the opinions of the handful of dickheads in this auditorium are somehow significant. They're not.

And I will answer the question. As I have above. People shouldn't be forced to pay for services at the barrel of a gun, including the wars your party endorses. I don't want to be in Iraq or Afghanistan or the other one hundred and some countries the United States is currently in. But I scarcely hear you or supporters of your party speak against the wars, nation-building and occupations when your "leader" is in office. So maybe you should crawl out of your ivory tower and dress yourself and your emperor because you have no clothes, sir.

>> ^blankfist:

Yeah, the audience was pretty horrendous with their reactions. You just don't cheer the death of anyone even if hypothetical, and we should consider it our duty as humans to do whatever we can individually to help those less fortunate or those in need. But it should be voluntary. No service, even healthcare, should be compulsory because then in order to fund it it would have to be offered at the barrel of a gun - meaning the money must be forcibly extracted from the citizens to pay for it which is immoral.
You don't steal from Peter to pay Paul.


Thank You, blankfist.

I don't agree with you about how the system should work, but at least you can articulate your arguments.

Yeah, the audience was pretty horrendous with their reactions. You just don't cheer the death of anyone even if hypothetical, and we should consider it our duty as humans to do whatever we can individually to help those less fortunate or those in need. But it should be voluntary. No service, even healthcare, should be compulsory because then in order to fund it it would have to be offered at the barrel of a gun - meaning the money must be forcibly extracted from the citizens to pay for it which is immoral.

You don't steal from Peter to pay Paul.

>> ^swedishfriend:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^swedishfriend:
>> ^blankfist:
Services and goods offered at the barrel of a gun are immoral.

Good thing we live in a representative democracy!

The US isn't a representational democracy. It's a constitutional republic. That aside, both forms of government are immoral to some degree because they force services and goods onto the people.

Where is the force? You don't have to use government services. You can live on your own away from others and supply your own food and shelter. Many people already do this in the USA. You have to accept your own responsibility in participating in the system which you call immoral but which only includes willing participants who themselves set the rules.

I and many others love paying taxes because we are contributing to the collective strategy of an entire nation. If there are rules or strategies I don't like I work to change them. If I ever felt threatened or forced to do anything I would resist or move to a more reasonable society.
-Karl


You have to pay for them. The money is forced from your income.

And let me ask you, do you enjoy paying taxes for endless wars, hegemony, and having over 700 bases in the large majority of nations? Tax money well spent.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^swedishfriend:
>> ^blankfist:
Services and goods offered at the barrel of a gun are immoral.

Good thing we live in a representative democracy!

The US isn't a representational democracy. It's a constitutional republic. That aside, both forms of government are immoral to some degree because they force services and goods onto the people.

Where is the force? You don't have to use government services. You can live on your own away from others and supply your own food and shelter. Many people already do this in the USA. You have to accept your own responsibility in participating in the system which you call immoral but which only includes willing participants who themselves set the rules.


I and many others love paying taxes because we are contributing to the collective strategy of an entire nation. If there are rules or strategies I don't like I work to change them. If I ever felt threatened or forced to do anything I would resist or move to a more reasonable society.

-Karl

>> ^swedishfriend:

>> ^blankfist:
Services and goods offered at the barrel of a gun are immoral.

Good thing we live in a representative democracy!


The US isn't a representational democracy. It's a constitutional republic. That aside, both forms of government are immoral to some degree because they force services and goods onto the people.

>> ^blankfist:

Services and goods offered at the barrel of a gun are immoral.

Good thing we live in a representative democracy!